Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 ... 28   Go Down

Author Topic: After the Landing  (Read 388775 times)

Tom Swearengen

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 818
  • earhart monument, Hawaii
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #180 on: June 11, 2012, 12:40:37 PM »

Brad & Tom---all good points. We dont know what survival training they had. Fred may have, but with the theory that he may have been injured in the landing, who knows what kind of help he would have been. Also something else to consider wa the fact that they intended on landing on Howland, and may not have been prepare to land anywhere else. Think of it as a flight to LA and having to put your plane down where in the Mojave. Most likely not something they were expecting, but I think should have prepared for.
Tom---all of our survival training, camping, hiking, experiences are awesome, but we have to put ourselves in her shoes and see what SHE was capable of. I wonder if any of our great researchers can find where she did any of that. If I had to bet, I'd say no. Hard for me to see a socialite like AE going hiking and camping in the woods for a week at a time. Girl Scout--maybe, but did they camp like they do know, or stay in cottages? We're talking about a whole different world here. Gilligan's Island for sure, except no professor,or Mary Ann. More like Hanks in 'Castaway', except the film crew and wilson. Remember, we're talking about 1937, not 2012. might be interesting to know if she did participate in camoing, hiking, and such. Might make a BIG difference in how we think .
Tom
Tom Swearengen TIGHAR # 3297
 
Logged

Andrew M McKenna

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 692
  • Here I am during the Maid of Harlech Survey.
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #181 on: June 11, 2012, 03:15:31 PM »

Malcolm says:

"Every time the failure of the naval aviators to spot them is raised we are offered the convenient but utterly unsupported claim that the Navy fliers basically couldn't see anything because they were trained for observing shell splashes rather than people. But that to me is not a reason, just a convenient excuse to support a wonky "fact" used to create a hypothesis. We must remember that on the one hand people claim that the Navy fliers couldn't spot an elephant in an empty barn while on the other hand we accept that they saw signs of recent habitation."

You say that the idea that the Navy fliers "couldn't see anything" is unsupported.  I don't think anyone has said the Navy fliers "couldn't see anything", just that the odds of being seeing a person are pretty small and that in the limited time they were overhead they did not spot anyone on the ground.  They did, as you point out spot "signs of recent habitation", so your use of "couldn't see anything" is wildly exaggerated in an apparent effort to make the TIGHAR scenario of missing persons on the ground seem absurd.

The difficulty of spotting folks on the ground is supported by the aerial tour which was flown at lower altitude than the Navy flight, and despite the fact that we know were some of the people on the ground should be, they are not visible in the video.  Some folks are relatively easy to spot, especially when the camera knows where they are and zooms in, but there are others there who are not visible.  Have you seen the aerial tour?  How many people can you spot?

In addition, as a trained airborne SAR Incident Commander, I can tell you that the probability of detection that I would assign to such a search - i.e. spotting a person on the ground during a couple of passes over the dense vegetation of Nikumaroro by non SAR trained personnel flying in open cockpit biplanes - would be extremely small.

So when you say that the notion that the Navy overflight was unsuccessful is "utterly unsupported" you are both discounting the available support for such a notion, some of which is visually available to yourself, and exposing your own bias towards not considering the possible reasons why such an overflight might not be successful at spotting persons on the ground. 

Furthermore, you've completely discounted the possibility that the signs of recent habitation might actually be related to Earhart and Noonan.  I find it unusual that you, as a scientist, so easily dismiss the possibility that signs of recent habitation on an uninhabited island could be related to two persons known to be missing in the area.  Yes, there are other possible explanations, but you have to admit that one possible scenario is that such signs were made by Earhart and/ or Noonan.  Isn't that scenario worth investigating?  Why are you so resistant to consider or explore that possibility?

You've reduced the discussion to binary absurdities - Navy fliers would have seen anything that was there - vs - Navy fliers "couldn't see anything".  Neither one is realistic, but the fact that you choose one over the other would indicate that you are not the objective third party you proclaim to be.  You've chosen one of the binary ends that itself has no actual supporting evidence, only your personal unsupported opinion.

This is a hypotheses we're working on here, something that is not yet proven, but a scenario that has to accommodate all the known facts, "wonky" or not.  If all the facts were as binary as you prefer to make them, it would be a lot easier.  The signs of recent habitation and the fact that no persons were seen by the Navy overflight are two facts that are easily dealt with in the area of messy reality between your sanitized binary ends.

Andrew

Logged

C.W. Herndon

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 634
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #182 on: June 11, 2012, 03:28:49 PM »

BRAVO!!!
Woody (former 3316R)
"the watcher"
 
Logged

Greg Daspit

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 788
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #183 on: June 11, 2012, 05:55:04 PM »

I saw the helo tour and could not see the people until the camera zoomed in. But has there been a reverse test?
Is it possible that with the sound of surf they may not have even heard the planes?  I live at the end of an airport and planes flying low are often not heard until they are right over.

 I think it is also possible they were so deep in the trees seeking water, food or shade, that they got out in the open for only one last pass of the planes before the planes went to search the other islands.
Maybe the planes searched the beach the first pass and the openings in the trees the second pass but by the 2nd pass, the castaways were then on the beach and were missed. I can certainly see problems for searchers, even ones trained to find people instead of spotting shell splashes.

3971R
 
Logged

Tom Bryant

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 25
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #184 on: June 11, 2012, 06:26:24 PM »

Agreed and thus the scenario I presented earlier. Since there is no warning that planes will show up it sometimes takes a bit for it to sink in that you might actually have just heard a plane. I have had them buzz my camp and among the four or five of us sitting in the common tent there is often that moment of "what was that?"
I have had planes buzz my general location with the intention of locating me to pick me up and by the time I could get out onto a gravel bar they were long gone. Thankfully we both knew about where I would be so the pilot just turned around and came around again but there was not this advantage for the pilots or the castaways.
People who want to be seen are usually pretty obvious so long as you give them a chance. I would credit the fliers with some skill in seeing somebody but that somebody would have to be out in the open and in a place that was about to be flown over rather than just buzzed.  Not sure how many laps of the island the boys made but hate to think that AE and FN were there but either not able to get out quick enough or did get out but in the wrong place. A plane at the far northern end looking over the ship wreckage etc would be looking there and even if they looked southerly the trees would probably mask somebody down at Site 7.
"Well... it seemed like a good idea at the time"
 
Logged

john a delsing

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 66
  • Minnesota Johnny D.
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #185 on: June 11, 2012, 10:57:07 PM »

Andrew, I did view the 'aerial tour", some differences I noted were that the "tour" had only one aircraft, not 3 with loud radial engines, the "tour" aircraft made one circle of the island not three  ( with zooming and six people looking ), and no one on the ground was running around waving shirts over their heads like they wanted to be seen. I know that mine is not the popular belief, but I believe if AE / FN were still alive they could have made it to an opening or to the beach and been spoted. My belief is AE planed for having to survive on a island ( carring extra water, food, ect. ) the same way she planed out her radio communications. It is also quite possible that Betty was correct, that there were serious injuries.
The Earth is Full
 
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #186 on: June 12, 2012, 01:14:10 AM »



In addition, as a trained airborne SAR Incident Commander, I can tell you that the probability of detection that I would assign to such a search - i.e. spotting a person on the ground during a couple of passes over the dense vegetation of Nikumaroro by non SAR trained personnel flying in open cockpit biplanes - would be extremely small.


Andrew
Well, since you brought this up and because Tom Bryant (and others) just recently tuned into this forum, I suggest that they review our previous discussion of the probability of detection IF Earhart and Noonan had been on Gardner. We discussed this extensively and I posted the actual manual that is used to compute the cumulative probability of detection so anyone interested can do the computations for themselves.

 In short, there is a disagreement about the probability of detection. Ric and Andrew place it at a very low value but my computation, using the official manual, shows a probability of 90% if they were in the bush and 95% if they were in the open, on the beach, the  reef or large clearings.
For those interested in this, please review the first 36 messages on this topic. (just click the blue link). And please review the official manual and do the computations for yourselves, don't just take my word for it or Andrew's word for it.

(BTW, Andrew, can you explain how you got the extremely low PODs in reply #6. Do you have other POD tables than the ones I posted that cover these extremely low PODs? If so, please post them. Since you claimed that it takes 4 passes to raise the cumulative probability of detection to just 0.95%, if searching for a person in dense cover, how many passes would it take to raise the cumulative POD to the 80% necessary to end the search? Let's say you had to search for a missing person in heavy cover in a quadrangle five miles on a side. Using your numbers, it would take flying 200 miles just to get to the 0.95% cumulative POD. (0.5 mile spacing means 10 tracks each 5 miles long = 50 miles, times 4 passes = 200 miles.) A Cessna 172 flying at 90 mph would take two hours and 15 minutes and there would be additional hours for flying to and from the search area and for making the turns at the ends of each track. A Cessna 172 costs about $120 per hour so this search would cost at least $300 and would produce less than a one percent probability of finding the missing person so it must cost about a zillion dollars to raise the POD to the 80% necessary to end the search. In your experience, Andrew, what track spacing was used for searching for persons in the woods of Colorado and how many passes were made prior to ending the search? Do you have any of your work sheets that you used for planning such searches that you could scan in and share with us?)

gl
« Last Edit: June 12, 2012, 04:13:11 AM by Gary LaPook »
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #187 on: June 12, 2012, 02:14:37 AM »


This is a hypotheses we're working on here, something that is not yet proven, but a scenario that has to accommodate all the known facts, "wonky" or not.  If all the facts were as binary as you prefer to make them, it would be a lot easier.  The signs of recent habitation and the fact that no persons were seen by the Navy overflight are two facts that are easily dealt with in the area of messy reality between your sanitized binary ends.

Andrew

I won't bother quoting the whole reply, but take the last paragraph as a summation of the whole.

When the matter of the Navy search flyover was discussed on a previous occasions it was Martin who was most adamant that the fliers were not trained to find people, only big shell splashes - so I have not manufactured that assessment.

I also have viewed the video of the flight around the island and I think the claim that people are hard to see in it is a little exaggerated, in fact I could see them - that is because I also have some first hand experience from my own work as an archaeologist of using helicopters for spotting and I know from my relatively untrained experience (compared to the naval aviators) that while it is difficult it is not as hard as is claimed. Therefore speaking as someone with experience of this I can say that it most certainly doesn't support the conclusion that the naval personnel wouldn't have seen anything if some one was there - that is just a hyped up assessment meant to convince us all that the people are hard to see, I assure you that they aren't. So kindly don't confuse me with some amateur willing to believe that nonsense.

Those naval aviators were trained observers not just people grabbed out of the crew for the task so I would allow them some professional expertise and I expect that you should do so also. Now as for that ridiculous remark that I am making some sanitized binary observation, or binary absurdity (whatever that is) as you claim - I do actually have some real experience of the process. You are simply accusing me of an empty claim based on an armchair assessment and I find that silly.

One would have to be insensible to logic to deny that there is a very real probability that Earhart and Noonan were not on the island and never had been. Now I think anyone with any sense accepts that and those who can't should actually take a deep breath and stop using that helicopter fly-over which is simply aimed at a mass audience the vast majority of which will have have no experience of spotting things from the air so that they will nod their heads sagely and agree with the narrator. Then that induced reaction is translated into an assumption that the naval aviators also would have missed anyone on the island.

I pointed out that the naval aviators saw signs of recent habitation - I also suggested what that might have been. I used that fact to suggest that they were capable enough therefore of seeing Earhart or Noonan or a camp they might have made. If they didn't then that does also support the probability that the pair weren't there to be seen - so please don't misread what I said.

I am not sorry if my scepticism about some of the "evidence" put forward to support the Nikumaroro hypothesis upsets some people because in truth some of it does seem very contrived and flimsy to me. I suspect it appears the same to others as well. If people cannot handle the fact that not all agree about the evidence and wish to behave like a cheer squad then that is their option but I would seriously suggest that they are not looking closely enough at what is offered as evidence. Simply agreeing with the hypothesis won't prove it. That is precisely why I raised the point that Earhart and Noonan's disappearance on the island in so short a time needs to be very carefully considered not only for the reasons, but for its role in the structure of the Nikumaroro hypothesis. Simply put are we assuming that they died or weakened quickly simply to explain why the naval aviators didn't see them so that the hypothesis will stay alive, rather than answering the question about what happened to them.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2012, 02:18:19 AM by Malcolm McKay »
Logged

Tom Bryant

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 25
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #188 on: June 12, 2012, 09:20:16 AM »

Thanks for reference Gary. A spirited debate to be sure. I enjoy dueling statistics as much as anybody but after reading that I decided to consult my PET (Personal Experience Tables) for some insight. Now these may not be published in a manual but they are the accumulation of decades of looking for people on the ground in various terrain. Mostly the far north so spruce trees or tundra compared to palm trees and sand. SAR and looking for geological personnel - they get into the darndest places and I keep misplacing them.
My overall assessment after careful consultation and slide rule computations is that ...it depends.
If our castaways were out in the open chances go way up. All the factors mentioned in your referenced debate notwithstanding the pilots were purposely looking for people - they were trying to see people and people trying to be seen are generally easy to spot if they can get into the open.
Add some tree cover over people who cannot be on watch 24/7 and who might not be in the best of shape and chances go down. ( as an aside has anyone here ever been standing next to someone trying to be seen as they wave their arms and shout "HEY DOWN HERE!!!" like the pilot will suddenly turn to somebody next to him and ask "did you just hear something?")
Bottom line - they were not seen. Does that mean they were not there? Maybe ...maybe not. No argument clincher for me either way just another data point.
"Well... it seemed like a good idea at the time"
 
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 3006
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #189 on: June 12, 2012, 10:43:29 AM »

Those naval aviators were trained observers not just people grabbed out of the crew for the task so I would allow them some professional expertise and I expect that you should do so also.

I'm looking for a little objectivity here.

Could you dig up the training manuals used to train these particular pilots in search-and-rescue techniques prior to the overflights in 1937?

If you don't have that data, all you have is a fact-free opinion--a religious belief, if you will, that is no better and no worse than other folk's beliefs.  The fact that you have immense respect for your own opinions does not make them objectively anything other than an opinion.

Until you provide the objective evidence to think otherwise, I will stick with my opinion that the training the pilots and spotters received was related to their mission on a battleship: spotting the fall of naval artillery fire.  While it is training in observation, and while I respect these men as having met the standards required in their training, I see no reason to suppose that it equipped them for recognizing wrecks and survivors, which is a different kettle of fish.  I will, of course, modify this opinion if you provide the objective data on this particular point.

I do not have a definitive history of the development of SAR techniques.  From this article, it appears that the Germans began preparations for search-and-rescue in 1935; the U.S. efforts along the same lines appear to have been a few years later.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

john a delsing

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 66
  • Minnesota Johnny D.
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #190 on: June 12, 2012, 11:55:06 AM »

Martin,  I do not have any Navy training manuals to refer to, but I would be very surprised if both the pilots and the observers were not selected by the navy in part because of their excellent eye sight. Probably much, much better than the aveage TIGHAR member that was challaged to " find the people from heli tour ". I would like to think it logical to believe that these air crews where also trained to spot many things, things such as people on ships, or land waving them "off" or giving them other signals.
The Earth is Full
 
Logged

Tom Swearengen

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 818
  • earhart monument, Hawaii
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #191 on: June 12, 2012, 12:15:04 PM »

hey Johhny D----was good to see you in DC!
Tom
Tom Swearengen TIGHAR # 3297
 
Logged

C.W. Herndon

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 634
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #192 on: June 12, 2012, 12:39:30 PM »

John, I say this from the perspective of an Army pilot from the Viet Nam era. We were required to have 20/20 vision to get into flight school. After completion of flight school and over the years, many of the pilots, myself included, had to start wearing glasses (I actually got my first pair before flight school was completed). It was ok to be far sighted but different for near sightedness although it was also ok to a point. I don't think many people maintain 20/20 vision forever.

I have seen both Navy and Air Force pilots who had to wear "corrective lenses' and were still able to fly.

As far as training for locating people on the ground, we got none. All of that type training was OJT (on the job training) and specific to the unit you were in. I was in units that closely supported ground units and we flew many hours at 50-100 feet above the troops. We had 4 man crews and frequently had trouble keeping the ground troops in sight even though we knew where they were. Vegetation and shadows can really play tricks on you especially when you are looking down on something and moving fairly fast (90 -100 knots) and yes that was fast for us. We also had the advantage of 4 pairs of eyes, compared to 2 pairs in the Navy searches for AE and FN. We also had much better visability, no 54" diameter radial engine up front and no wings on the sides. Seeing people on the ground is much more difficult than it sounds.
Woody (former 3316R)
"the watcher"
 
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 3006
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #193 on: June 12, 2012, 12:43:34 PM »

Martin,  I do not have any Navy training manuals to refer to, but I would be very surprised if both the pilots and the observers were not selected by the navy in part because of their excellent eye sight. Probably much, much better than the aveage TIGHAR member that was challaged to " find the people from heli tour ". I would like to think it logical to believe that these air crews where also trained to spot many things, things such as people on ships, or land waving them "off" or giving them other signals.

I have the greatest respect for the military's ability to find folks with good eyesight.

In the last 75 years, we have learned a great deal about how eyesight works from the air when searching for survivors on land or water.  It is a trickier proposition that one might imagine at first.  We have a capacity nowadays to train people how to use their eyesight wisely that is different from the interests of the military in training gun observers in the 1930s.

I understand that you "think it logical to believe that these air crews were also trained to spot many things."  You share that religious belief with Malcolm.  Neither one of you are backing it up with objective evidence

All I'm trying to do is to establish the right category for the act of faith that you and Malcolm share.  Logic works on premises; it does not decide which premises are true.  If the Navy trained the observers to "spot many things," then that increases the force of the argument that their failure to spot AE and FN is evidence that AE and FN were not on the island.  If their training was focused on spotting the effect of gunnery with respect to a target on land or water, then that does not (in my belief system, at any rate) increase my confidence in their ability to spot one or two survivors on Niku (if there were survivors on Niku to be spotted).

Logic is all about if-then relations.  Logic can be applied to false premises as well as true premises.  An argument from false premises is just as logical as one from true premises.  In other words, an argument may be both logical and false.  Only if the premises are true and if the logic is sound will a conclusion be true as a consequence of using logic to draw conclusions from the premises.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Jeff Victor Hayden

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1387
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #194 on: June 12, 2012, 01:17:51 PM »

Our drop zones were marked by coloured smoke. We jumped at 800 feet, the crew of the plane needed smoke because at 800 feet even above flat open areas you were hard pressed to see anyone, waving or not. You get a fairly good view through the acres of glass out of the front of a C-130 as well.
This must be the place
 
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 ... 28   Go Up
 

Copyright 2024 by TIGHAR, a non-profit foundation. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be reproduced by xerographic, photographic, digital or any other means for any purpose. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be stored in a retrieval system, copied, transmitted or transferred in any form or by any means, whether electronic, mechanical, digital, photographic, magnetic or otherwise, for any purpose without the express, written permission of TIGHAR. All rights reserved.

Contact us at: info@tighar.org • Phone: 610-467-1937 • Membership formwebmaster@tighar.org

Powered by MySQL SMF 2.0.18 | SMF © 2021, Simple Machines Powered by PHP